coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
5.  The applicants - Mr Blagota Barać, Mr Milan Terzić, Mr Zoran Stanišić, Mr Stanko Burić, Ms Stanica Marković, Mr Radovan Kadović, Mr Ranko Tomašević, Mr Novo Stanišić, Mr Branko Radulović, Mr Novak Nikolić, Mr Mihailo Popović, Mr Milan Golubović, and Mr Ranko Kovačević - are all Montenegrin nationals who were born in 1968, 1953, 1961, 1950, 1956, 1951, 1952, 1963, 1951, 1966, 1955, 1953, and 1955 respectively and live in Danilovgrad.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 14 January 2005 the applicants filed a claim for compensation (isplata zimnice) against their employer.
8.  On 13 February 2006 the Court of First Instance (Osnovni sud) in Danilovgrad ruled in their favour, awarding them 150 euros (EUR) each, plus legal costs totalling EUR 1,875.
9.  On 26 April 2006 the High Court (Viši sud) in Podgorica overturned the previous judgment and rejected the applicants’ claim, relying solely on the Act on Changes and Amendments to the Labour Act 2004 (Zakon o izmjenama i dopunama Zakona o radu, hereinafter “the Labour Amendments Act 2004”). At the same time, the applicants were ordered to pay jointly to their employer EUR 900 for legal costs. The applicants received this judgment on 23 May 2006 at earliest.
10.  On 12 September 2006 the Supreme Court (Vrhovni sud) in Podgorica rejected the applicants’ appeal on points of law on procedural grounds (revizija se odbacuje).
11.  On 28 February 2006 the Constitutional Court of Montenegro (Ustavni sud) declared the Labour Amendments Act 2004 unconstitutional (see paragraph 14 below).
12.  On 18 April 2006 that decision was published in Official Gazette no. 24/06 (Službeni list br. 24/06), and thereby the said Act ceased to be in force (see paragraph 13, in particular Article 62 therein, and paragraph 16 below).
6.  The applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Kuzmolovskiy, Leningrad Region.
7.  The applicant served as a military officer.
8.  On 25 July 2003 the Military Court of the Sertolovo Garrison issued a default judgment recovering 34,277.10 Russian roubles (RUB) in the applicant’s favour from military unit 93921 as an allowance for direct participation in combat action.
9.  The judgment was not appealed and became final on 5 August 2003.
10.  Following the applicant’s inquiry with the Ministry of Defence concerning the enforcement proceedings on 24 February 2004, she was apprised of the procedure.
11.  On 8 February 2005 the bailiff service terminated the enforcement proceedings, returning the writ of execution to the applicant for submission to the Federal Treasury where the debtor’s account was opened.
12.  However, the applicant has never submitted the documents to the Federal Treasury and the judgment remains unenforced to date.
13.  According to the Government, on an unspecified date military unit 93921 was dissolved.
6.  The applicant was born in 1973. At present he is serving a life sentence in Leopoldov Prison.
7.  The applicant was accused of several serious offences. In that context he was detained pending trial from 1 September 2001 to 9 February 2006. On the latter date he started serving a nine-year prison term to which he had been sentenced for robbery. Further details are set out in the decision of 20 October 2010 on the admissibility of the present application.
8.  During his detention on remand the applicant lodged several complaints with the Directorate General of Prison Administration, in which he complained about the conditions of his detention. He raised many issues, among which were the restrictions on his visiting rights (visits were allowed only once a month for thirty minutes and it was only possible to speak to visitors through a partition), the right to buy food in prison, the lack of hot water in his cell, and a lack of contact with other prisoners. He also alleged that convicted prisoners serving a sentence had more rights than he had as a remand prisoner.
9.  The Directorate General of Prison Administration sent replies to the applicant on more than ten occasions. It found all of the applicant’s complaints to be ill-founded. It also held that the conditions in the prisons in which the applicant had been detained during the investigation and judicial proceedings had been in conformity with the relevant law.
10.  Furthermore, the applicant has been obliged, both during his detention and after his conviction, to use half of the money he received from his family to reimburse the debt which he owed to the State (this debt resulted from court decisions and from the statutory obligation to contribute to his maintenance in prison), failing which he was not allowed to buy supplementary food in the prison shop.
Thus, the applicant’s overall debt amounted to the equivalent of some 750 euros (EUR) in March 2008. In the period from December 2002 to January 2008 he had reimbursed approximately EUR 360 of the debt.
11.  On 16 January 2003 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Prosecutor General submitting that his human rights had been violated. He complained, inter alia, about the manner in which the State had forced him to reimburse the debt resulting from the statutory obligation to contribute to his maintenance in prison.
12.  On 30 January 2003 the Prosecutor General dismissed that complaint as no breach of the law had been found in the applicant’s case.
13.  During the whole period of his detention during the investigation and trial the applicant could not watch television, whereas convicted prisoners had the possibility of watching television programmes collectively in the assembly room of the relevant prison wing. Through the prison broadcast system the prison administration let the detainees listen to a public and a private radio station, each of which was transmitted every other day. For almost the whole period of his detention pending trial the applicant was kept alone in his cell.
4.  The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Odessa.
5.  On 13 April 2000 the police detained him on suspicion of illicit possession of drugs. On 19 April 2000 the applicant was released from detention. Throughout the ensuing criminal proceedings he has remained on a written undertaking not to abscond.
6.  On 1 September 2000, following the completion of the pre-trial investigations, the case was referred to the Zhovtnevyy District Court of Odessa, which on 31 January 2003 absolved the applicant for lack of proof against him. On 22 April 2003 the Odessa Regional Court of Appeal (“the Court of Appeal”) quashed the above judgment for procedural breaches and remitted the case for retrial.
7.  Between 22 January and 15 December 2004 the proceedings were suspended as the applicant absconded and his whereabouts were unknown.
8.  On 13 April 2006 the Prymorskyy District Court of Odessa (“the Prymorskyy Court”), to which the case was transferred, found the applicant guilty as charged, sentenced him to one year’s imprisonment and exempted him from the sentence as the charges against him became time-barred. On 20 June 2006 the Court of Appeal quashed that judgment for procedural breaches and remitted the case for retrial.
9.  On 12 June 2007 the Prymorskyy Court discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant as the charges against him became time‑barred. On 18 September 2007 the Court of Appeal quashed the above decision for procedural breaches and remitted the case for retrial. The proceedings are still pending before the Prymorskyy Court.
10.  In the course of the proceedings fifty-eight hearings have been adjourned due to the applicant’s, his lawyer’s and the witnesses’ failure to appear or upon the applicant’s or his lawyer’s requests. These delays attributable to the applicant have protracted the proceedings by three years and eight months approximately. Seven hearings have been adjourned due to the absence of the judges. Eighteen hearings have been adjourned due to the witnesses’ failure to appear, in respect of whom the courts have on a number of occasions applied compulsory summonses. Twenty-seven hearings have been adjourned due to the absence of the Polish interpreter, on whose presence the applicant has insisted, even though the domestic courts have established that the applicant has been fully conversant in the language of the proceedings. Three expert examinations have been ordered and have lasted for about two months.
4.  The applicant was born in 1972 and is currently detained in Poznań Remand Centre.
5.  On 3 September 1998 the applicant was charged with theft and extortion.
6.  On 10 February 1999 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk-Północ District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). The applicant was indicted as charged.
7.  On 5 December 2003 the Gdańsk-Północ District Court held the first hearing. It subsequently held some twenty hearings.
8.  On 3 October 2005 the Gdańsk-Północ District Court convicted the applicant of theft and extortion and sentenced him to two years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.
9.  On 20 June 2007 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case.
10.  Hearings scheduled for 29 October and 7 December 2007 were adjourned as the applicant had failed to appear.
11.  On 11 February 2008 the presiding judge scheduled the next hearing for 12 March 2008 and ordered that the applicant be brought to a hearing by the police.
12.  Hearings scheduled for 12 March, 25 April and 3 June 2008 were adjourned as the applicant had failed to appear.
13.  On 9 July 2008 the Gdańsk-Północ District Court issued an arrest warrant against the applicant.
14.  On 25 May 2009 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody.
15.  During the court proceedings the courts further extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention on several occasions. The applicant remains detained until the present date. Since his arrest the applicant has been serving a prison sentence of seven and a half years imposed on him in another set of criminal proceedings.
16.  A hearing scheduled for 18 August 2009 was cancelled as the applicant could not be transported to the courthouse.
17.  On 9 October 2009 the applicant’s legal-aid lawyer requested the court to adjourn a hearing as he had not been granted a visit with his client and therefore could not have discussed with him a defence strategy. The court adjourned a hearing until 17 November 2009.
18.  On 17 November 2009 the court held the first hearing. It subsequently held some twenty five hearings.
19.  The proceedings are still pending before the Gdańsk-Północ District Court.
20.  On an unspecified date the applicant lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court a complaint under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
21.  On 25 May 2010 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court noted that delays in the proceedings were imputable to the applicant who had failed to appear for several hearings and had gone into hiding for over a year.
4.  The applicant was born in 1959 and lives in Békéscsaba.
5.  On 16 March 1998 J.H. brought an action for payment of rent before the Szeged District Court against a private individual.
6.  On 23 March 1999 the District Court suspended the proceedings pending the termination of separate legal proceedings between the same parties. The case was resumed on 12 December 2000.
7.  On 29 May 2001 J.H. assigned his claim to the applicant who joined the proceedings on 28 June 2001.
8.  The case was again suspended between 4 December 2001 and 26 May 2004 pending the termination of a closely related legal dispute.
9.  Following several hearings, the District Court delivered its judgment on 7 June 2005 which was served on the applicant on 7 July 2005.
10.  In a decision dated 1 September 2005 the District Court established that the first-instance judgment had become final and enforceable on 26 August 2005 in the absence of appeal by the parties.
6.  The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Kamienna Gora.
7.  On 11 October 2006 the Kamienna Góra District Court convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment. On 30 January 2007 the Jelenia Góra Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment.
8.  On 7 February 2007 the applicant requested the court to be given the written grounds of the second-instance judgment. On 12 February 2007 the court refused to prepare the grounds as his request had been lodged outside the prescribed time‑limit.
9.  On 22 February 2007 the applicant appealed against that decision and requested the court to grant him retrospective leave to file a motion to have the written reasons of the second-instance judgment prepared and served on him.
10.  On a later unknown date the court allowed his request and assigned a legal-aid lawyer to the case. In a letter dated 13 April 2007 that lawyer informed the court about his refusal to prepare a cassation appeal, finding no grounds on which to do so. That letter was served on the court on 16 April 2007. The court subsequently forwarded the letter to the applicant. It was served on him on 23 April 2007.
11.  The court did not inform the applicant of his further procedural rights.
6.  The applicant was born in 1972 and is serving a sentence of life imprisonment in Temnivka Prison no. 100.
7.  On 3 December 2001 the dead body of a Mr L. was found, with a blood-stained axe lying next to it. A criminal investigation was initiated in respect of a suspected premeditated murder.
8.  From 14 January to 13 March 2002 the applicant underwent medical treatment for an unspecified psychiatric condition in the medical centre V.
9.  On 19 July 2002 he was arrested in the framework of an unrelated murder investigation.
10.  In March 2006 the applicant, who was at the time serving a fixed-term prison sentence for several counts of premeditated murder, made a confession, first to the prison administration and later to the investigation authorities, that on 3 December 2001 he had twice hit Mr L. on the head with the back of an axe without having the intention of killing him.
11.  Free legal counsel was appointed for, and represented, the applicant during the pre-trial investigation and the proceedings before the first-instance court.
12.  During the pre-trial investigation the applicant unsuccessfully requested the investigator to arrange for the translation into Russian of some materials in the case file which were in Ukrainian.
13.  On 7 November 2006 the Kyiv Regional Court of Appeal (“the Kyiv Court”), sitting as a court of first instance, found the applicant guilty of premeditated murder committed repeatedly and sentenced him to life imprisonment. It noted that although the applicant had alleged that he had had no intention to kill, the fact that he had hit the victim with an axe on a vital part of his body twice and with considerable force, indicated the opposite. While taking into account the applicant’s voluntary confession, the Kyiv Court noted that it was the fourth murder he had committed and considered life imprisonment to be the appropriate penalty. At the applicant’s request, the proceedings before the Kyiv Court were held in Russian.
14.  The applicant, who was no longer represented, lodged a cassation appeal in which he mentioned, inter alia, that he had no means to pay for legal assistance.
15.  On 22 February 2007 the Supreme Court, following a hearing in which the applicant participated, upheld his conviction.
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Budapest.
5.  In or about November 1993 the applicant and his wife brought an action against several respondents before the Budapest XVIII/XIX District Court, seeking ownership of a real estate and protection against trespass.
6.  The District Court held numerous hearings between 27 June 1994 and 29 June 1995.
7.  On 5 July 1995 the District Court delivered a partial judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs’ claim for protection against trespass. This decision was upheld on appeal by the Budapest Regional Court on 13 March 1996.
8.  On 8 June 1998 the District Court appointed an expert who filed an opinion on 29 November 1998.
9.  The final first-instance judgment was delivered on 14 September 1999. On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court decided the case on 20 March 2002.
10.  The applicant lodged a petition for review with the Supreme Court. It quashed the previous judgments and remitted the case to the first-instance on 25 April 2005.
11.  In the resumed proceedings the applicant notified the domestic courts that one of the respondents had died on 2 November 2002. On 22 February 2006 the Supreme Court thus established that the review proceedings had been discontinued on this account, and annulled its previous judgment of 25 April 2005 (see paragraph 10 above). The same day, the Supreme Court remitted the case to the first-instance.
12.  Between 16 October 2007 and 12 March 2008 the proceedings were stalled because the applicant did not cooperate with a court-appointed expert.
13.  On 16 May 2008 the case was transferred to the Buda Central District Court, due to bias of the judges at the Pest Central District Court.
14.  On 12 December 2008 the latter court delivered a partial judgment. On 13 November 2009 the Budapest Regional Court held a hearing on appeal. It appears from the documents available in the case file that the case is still pending before the Regional Court.
4.  The first applicant was born in 1953 and lives in Szentendre. He is the managing director of the second applicant, a limited liability company with its seat in Szentendre, established in 1990.
5.  On 9 October 2000 a limited liability company brought an action against the second applicant before the Pest County Regional Court, requesting the court to establish its ownership on a real estate.
6.  On 12 June 2001 the plaintiff company submitted further claims and extended its action to the first applicant and six others.
7.  On 16 December 2002 the court obtained an expert opinion.
8.  On 10 October 2005 the court discontinued the proceedings in respect of the first applicant, as the plaintiff withdrew this part of his claim.
9.  On 13 December 2005 the court held a hearing. It established that the discontinuation of the proceedings in respect of the first applicant had become final in the absence of appeal. The court also delivered its judgment on this day in respect of the second applicant. In the absence of appeal by the parties, the judgment became final on 3 February 2006.
4.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Kilis.
5.  At the time of the events, the applicant was a registrar at the Gaziantep Tax Court.
6.  By a decision of the Ministry of Justice dated 5 November 2000, the applicant was appointed to the Hatay Tax Court, relying on the negative report prepared by the Justice Inspector concerning certain allegations against him.
7.  On 23 November 2000 the applicant brought proceedings before the Gaziantep Administrative Court for the annulment of his appointment to a new post in Hatay.
8.  On 13 June 2001 the court dismissed the applicant’s case.
9.  On 17 June 2005 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of 13 June 2001.
10.  On 10 April 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a request by the Ministry of Justice for rectification of the judgment.
11.  On 11 July 2006 the first-instance court once again dismissed the applicant’s annulment case.
12.  On 25 February 2010 the Supreme Administrative Court upheld the judgment of 11 July 2006.
5.  The applicant is a former police officer who was born in 1970 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Niš Penitentiary (Kazneno-popravni zavod u Nišu).
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  On 26 May 2005 the District Court in Leskovac found the applicant guilty of murdering his former wife, and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment.
8.  On 18 October 2005 the Supreme Court quashed this judgment and ordered a retrial.
9.  On 16 December 2005 the District Court in Leskovac again convicted the applicant and sentenced him to eleven years’ imprisonment. In so doing, it provided extensive reasoning.
10.  On 20 March 2006 the Supreme Court upheld this judgment. The appeal bench included judge M.C. and the applicant received the judgment on 26 May 2006.
11.  On 26 June 2006, through the prison authorities and as evidenced by their certificate, the applicant filed an appeal on points of law (zahtev za ispitivanje zakonitosti pravosnažne presude). The Supreme Court received this appeal on 5 July 2006, as certified by its stamp of even date.
12.  On 31 May 2007 the Supreme Court noted that the appeal had been lodged on 5 July 2006 and consequently had to be rejected as out of time (neblagovremen; see paragraph 20 below). The Supreme Court’s bench again included judge M.C. and the applicant received this decision on 21 September 2007.
4.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Diyarbakır.
5.  On 20 July 1993 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation. On 2 August 1993 she was brought before the investigating judge, who ordered her detention on remand.
6.  On 11 August 1993 the public prosecutor at the Diyarbakır State Security Court filed an indictment with that court accusing the applicant, with several others, of membership of an illegal armed organisation and of praising the offenders.
7.  On 26 March 1996 the Diyarbakır State Security Court sentenced the applicant to six years and three months’ imprisonment for involvement in activities that undermined the constitutional order of the State. With the same judgment, the court released the applicant, taking into account the period she had spent in detention.
8.  On 25 December 1997 the Court of Cassation quashed the judgment of the first-instance court in respect of the applicant, finding that the court erred in the qualification of the offence.
9.  Following a constitutional amendment in 2004, State Security Courts were abolished and the applicant’s case was transferred to the Diyarbakır Assize Court.
10.  On 14 March 2006 the Diyarbakır Assize Court sentenced the applicant to six years and three months’ imprisonment for membership of an illegal armed organisation. The Court of Cassation upheld that judgment on 5 July 2007.
4.  The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Turkey.
5.  On 16 October 2000 the applicant, a police officer, lodged an administrative case against the Ministry of Internal Affairs for having refused his compensation claim concerning his damage arising from a traffic accident.
6.  On 28 December 2001 the Ankara Administrative Court granted the applicant’s request.
7.  On 2 June 2004 the Supreme Administrative Court quashed the judgment of 28 December 2001.
8.  On 5 July 2006 the Supreme Administrative Court dismissed a request by the applicant for rectification of the judgment.
9.  According to the information submitted by the Government, on 19 December 2006 the administrative court dismissed the case and the applicant did not appeal against it.